Tyranny's Body Count Rises

Sometimes we talk about the overwhelming body count caused by communist regimes in the 20^th Century. But we’re two decades into the next century, and those numbers continue to add up.

We need to add every death from the SARS-COV-2, the COVID-19, also called the novel coronavirus, to the body count for the Chinese Communist Party.

Is it important to determine blame?

Think of it this way, using a simple society: your tribe is at war with a nearby tribe. You would rather not be at war; you are not the aggressor. But every night for a week, homes on the outskirts of your village have been attacked. The people within each home have been murdered. The signs of forced entry and violence are obvious. The aggressor tribe you’re at war with has threatened to do this violence. You set out scouts to watch the village perimeter. They report that intruders who appear to be dressed as your enemy tribesmen sneak in and out. In the morning additional households have been murdered.

Do you say, “Let’s not be hasty. We could have serial murderers among us. We don’t want to falsely blame our enemies and set in motion a need for action”? And then do you spend your time trying to find evidence of an internal serial murderer? Or do you start building a protective wall around the outer settlements—or some other protection against your enemy?

It’s helpful to know what’s actually happening so you can take the most appropriate actions to protect yourselves in the future.

In this case, the warring tribe against us is the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). It has declared war against us, the US in particular, the West in general, the rest of the world in all practical purposes.

Screenshot from "Tracking Down the Origin of the Wuhan Coronavirus"

The Crimes of China

China’s claim that the virus was a spontaneous mutation from wild animals—bats—that found its way into the population through a seafood market is now known to be a lie. It turns out, no one bought or sold bats at the Huanan Seafood Market. The bats that carry the coronavirus are specifically horseshoe bats, located in caves 900 km from the market—but captured and brought to the Wuhan Virology Lab where they were studied, just up the road from that market.

The logical assumption is—and the evidence shows—that this was a virus that was manufactured in a lab. The virus in nature does not transfer to humans. But a scientist at this lab, Shi Zhengli, had published as far back as 2010 on the methodology for getting these coronaviruses to infect humans. It was a matter of a lock and key. She replaced the key, the S-protein, in the SARS virus with one found in a bat coronavirus, and had plans to next experiment on primates. This woman has disappeared, but China says, “No, she’s fine,” but won’t show her, or even a new photo of her.

Shi Zhengli, speaking on cross-species infection in 2018
screenshot from here

At this point we don’t know the purpose of this research. It looks like creating a bioweapon is a possibility. But some funding for the research came from the US, which is puzzling if that was the only purpose.

We don’t yet have evidence that the outbreak was on purpose. It seems logical that they might have wanted to develop a vaccine first (which they would control distribution of), or they might have wanted to develop genetic engineering that would avoid affecting their own people. So, at this point I think it was an accidental leak.

But once it was out, the source was almost immediately known, as well as the virus’s ability to move person-to-person, and not just animal-to-human. They had the entire genome sequenced—which they provided to the world in February, months earlier than they would have been able to do in so short a time if this work had not already been essentially complete.

The CCP shut down any information about the virus. They destroyed evidence at the seafood market. They waited a full six weeks—and probably even weeks longer than that, to tell the world it was highly contagious—risking their own people by not closing down travel, and not taking containment measures, until mid-January, a full two months into the spread. Mid-January, before admitting human-to-human spread, they cut off Wuhan from the rest of China, but they did not cut off Wuhan from the rest of the world. 

A University of Southampton study found that the spread of Covid-19 could have been reduced by about 95% if China had been honest just three weeks earlier.

In February, when it was obvious they had long known about the contagion, they started claiming it was a bio-weapon placed in China by the Americans.

The WHO took China's word without question every step of the way. That is unconscionable.

As of today, 2,152,647 people worldwide have been confirmed to have contracted the virus (depending on testing, so that actual number is likely higher). The US has 667,801 cases.  Worldwide deaths are at 143,802. Every single one of these cases is to be laid at the feet of the CCP.

Sources

treating CCP virus patient in Wuhan, March 19
image from here

I expect you not to take my word for it. I am no expert. I just read and listen and try to piece things together. Here are some recommended sources to get you started:

The Epoch Times put out a special edition related to the virus for March/April 2020, which is full of information. Because the Chinese Communist Party has been at fault in endangering the world, they have made the editorial decision to consistently call it the CCP virus. This is a subscription paper, but some articles may be available online singly. I suggest “The Mysterious Origin of the CCP Virus”  and “How China’s Coverup Led to a Global Pandemic.” 

Also provided by The Epoch Times is a documentary on YouTube called “Tracking Down the Origin of the Wuhan Coronavirus,” posted April 7, 2020. Narrating the documentary is investigative reporter Joshua Phillip, who has spent over a decade writing about China’s espionage and unconventional warfare. The 54-minute documentary covers the origins, the forensic case, and the biology in a clear and reasonable way, providing documentation along the way. 

Another good source is a YouTube presentation by philosopher Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain, called “The Case Against China.” This 64-minute presentation lays out the case as you might a murder case. Our “murderer” (the CCP) waited 6 weeks to notify the “police”—the WHO. He lies (saying there is no human transmission). He refuses to allow the “police” (WHO) to question him. When the police bring a search warrant, they find he has destroyed evidence and records (at the Huanan Seafood Market). He attempted to collect “life insurance”—China steals a US patent that was given for free to attempt to treat the virus. He threatens anyone who knows anything—Chinese doctors disappear. He is found with the evidence—the bat studies in the virology lab. He previously declared that he hates his victim and plans to murder—China declared a “people’s war” against the United States in May 2019. The cause of death is found to be as expected—the bat virus being studied in the lab at the epicenter of the infection. How should the jury find the accused? Guilty.

Stefan Molyneux, presenting "The Case Against China"
screenshot from here

On his Friday night special three weeks ago, Glenn Beck went through the case, which he called “China Lied.” This is behind a paywall, but it’s worth it. Add to this his Wednesday night special a week ago, called “Arguing with (Chinese) Socialists,”  a smaller piece of which is available on Youtube. 

Screenshot from Glenn Beck, "Arguing with Chinese Socialists"

I’ve been following Bill Whittle’s daily updates on his video podcast The CoronaSphere Lounge. Episode 21 was titled, “Is theCoronavirus Man-Made?” It was in this one that he recommended “Tracking Down the Origin of the Wuhan Coronavirus.” A few days later, on episode 24, he recommended “The Case Against China.” Most of the time Whittle's daily updates have been optimistic about our coming out of this soon, and rebounding. Anyway, he lays out the information well himself, drawing from other sources.

Outcomes

This CCP-caused pandemic happened while China had a treaty to behave as other civilized nations do.  In Britain, legislators pointed out, “Legally binding international healthcare regulations require states to provide full information on all potential pandemics. It appears likely that in its early response to the outbreak, [China failed to] uphold its obligations.”

So, what can be done to hold them accountable? Every country should pursue the Chinese government through international courts for the billions or trillions of dollars in coronavirus compensation. The G7 should hold China accountable for the trillions in economic impact that would have been avoided if the CCP had been honest about the outbreak immediately.

One lawsuit, by Texas lawyer Larry Klayman, was filed for $20 trillion against the Chinese government—a higher amount than China’s GDP. In the suit he must defend the allegations about it being China’s fault. He believes he can.

What courts can be used? The International Court of Justice, the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the Hong Kong courts, resolution of disputes through bilateral investment treaties, or the World Trade Organization.

Another likely way is more organic. Without any orders from above, people will refuse to buy products from China. The money that companies used to save by using cheaper labor in China will no longer be a savings if it causes them to lose buyers of their products.

Let’s be clear about one thing: the Chinese regime is led by Chinese President Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party. The Chinese people did not perpetrate this crime.

Screenshot from Glenn Beck's "China Lied"

We know from our long dealings with Hong Kong and Taiwan—as well as the many many Chinese who have become Americans—that the Chinese people are worth supporting. After so many decades under this murderous tyranny, a best outcome would be that holding the CCP accountable for this pandemic—both in lives lost and in economic costs—might lead to the overthrow of the regime.

The CCP can no longer play on the world stage among civilized nations. They have lost that right. But their people have, over the past couple of decades, seen some small sample of what freedom brings to the rest of the world. Perhaps they will no longer stand for this tyranny when it removes them from the trade that has boosted their standard of living so significantly. It would be sweet justice if this led to freedom for the Chinese people—and freedom from the CCP for the whole world.

Encouraging Words

I don’t like hearing, “You’re not good enough; you need to do more,” especially when it’s a group project. Like the one we’re all involved in.

We’ve been confined to home, with a few times venturing out to forage for food, for about 3 ½ weeks now—coincidentally how long we in our household have been confined because of Mr. Spherical Model’s broken ankle, which makes it easy to keep track. And we haven’t, until now, gotten anything like, “What a good job you’re doing! It’s working.” In fact, this week there’s extra pressure to add face-mask-wearing to the going out routine.

Also, someone asked Dr. Anthony Fauci the other day the question that we should have had on the table before shutting down the world economy: what has to happen before we can let up? Fauci’s answer was zero new cases and zero deaths.

This is why you don’t have experts make policy. Fauci’s side is the scientist side; he’s required (and requires himself) to give the absolute, scientific answer—as part of the information a decision-maker needs.

We don’t shut down the world economy indefinitely until there is no new incidence nor a single death. We didn’t shut it down for the flu, which causes 40,000+ deaths a year. We didn’t shut it down in the past for polio, or small pox, or measles. We didn’t shut it down for the Spanish flu in 1918—although that pandemic affected the economy on its own, and some areas were shut down. We didn’t shut it down for Ebola a few years ago.

Zero possible deaths is not a standard we typically base policy on. We don’t stop people from swimming, or boating, or hiking. We don’t stop people from driving. We don’t even stop people from driving over 25 mph, even though we can estimate how many more deaths will occur for each increment of higher speed. We set policy based on something more, which includes willingness of the people Because people need to make a living, go about our lives, and willingly face a certain level of risk.

So while Dr. Fauci is right about what he needs to say, policymakers also need a say. (We discussed this difference in thinking on March 30.)

For example, about hydroxychloroquine, Dr. Fauci points out that there have not been double-blind clinical studies to determine effectiveness, only anecdotal evidence. So he is not in a position to give the green light for that drug. But anecdotal evidence isn’t nothing.

Dr. Vladimir Zelenko,
interview with Rudy Giuliani March 26th,
screenshot from here

There’s a doctor, Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, a family practitioner in New York, interviewed by Rudy Giuliani on his show Common Sense, on March 26^th, with some significant anecdotal evidence. (Bill Whittle shares a 15-minute clip of this interview on his CoronaSphere Lounge , Episode11, March 30^th, which is where I saw it.)   

In New York, Dr. Zelenko has treated a plethora of coronavirus patients—699 by March 30^th. He had been using a combination of hydroxycholoquine with zinc supplements, plus azithromycin. The combination of the three had worked in 100% of sick patients. He only gave the drug to patients already struggling with the virus or who were at very high risk, not the ones who were clearly going to get over it on their own without drugs. Of these moderately severe patients, zero moved into the more serious illness of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, which requires intubation, and from which there’s only a 50% recovery rate. Zero of his patients have died. Three have needed hospitalization with pneumonia; zero needed intubation. The 3-drug protocol takes five days. It’s possible not all symptoms will be gone at that point, but the virus replication has been slowed to the point the body can fight it off without further complication.

Dr. Zelenko thinks that the hydroxycholoquine is not actually attacking the virus. Rather, the zinc is interfering with the virus’s replication process. But the zinc has trouble entering the cell without the hydroxycholoquine. Once the hydroxychloroquine creates a channel into the cell, the zinc enters and does its healing work against the virus. Meanwhile, the azithromycin, an antibiotic, is working on a secondary bacterial infection, which happens when the gunk builds up in the bronchial tubes and lungs.

All total, the treatment is about $20 per patient and can be done in an outpatient setting.

Dr. Zelenko’s results coincide with other doctors using the hydroxychloroquine. In France, hydroxychloroquine had been combined with azithromycin in the lab with 100% success. Doctors in France and South Korea, and also doctors in New York ICUs, were each using two of the three medicines, with moderate success. He used the combination of all three, with significant success.

Note that it was only March 19^th when President Trump suggested that the FDA allow hydroxychloroquine to be used in this off-label way, in clinical trials, to treat the virus. Dr. Zelenko offers his evidence on March 26^th, one week later. The speed with which we’re getting at ways to treat and test for this virus is remarkably swift.

So a policymaker can look at that, listen to Dr. Fauci, but then say, why not use this on people who need something and have nothing better to try? Would you take it, if it were you? Probably yes. And the more anecdotal evidence we get—despite the lack of a double-blind study—the more likely we are to say “definitely yes.”

[Speaking of “anecdotal" evidence, there’s this piece, possibly worth considering.] 

So, that’s how a policymaker thinks differently from a scientist. We need both. But the policymakers are the ones radically affecting our lives right now, while the scientists do their very important role in the background.

We were told to social distance at first. Then stay home, with nonessential businesses shut down, all of us hoping that doing this for a few weeks would make a big difference.

But it has been that long. And without testing of the whole population—and we need two kinds of tests: to find out who has the virus now, and to find out who has antibodies because they’ve already fought off the virus—we don’t know what’s working. In that black hole of missing data, we’re stuck at home with the economy crashing around us indefinitely.

So, is there another way to tell whether what we’re doing is working? It turns out there is.

I got this chart from Bill Whittle, who has been giving encouraging words lately. He got the info from Kinsa’s Healthweather.us.  

data on fevers, from Healthweather.us

This chart does not show Covid-19. It shows body temperatures. There are companies, such as Kinsa, that make “smart” thermometers. People take their temperature, and their information gets uploaded for mass data purposes. The data has been gathering for enough years that there’s a normal expected range for the months of the year. In our country, body temperatures rise during winter, coinciding with cold and flu season, and then go down to a summer low, and rise back up in the fall. So that’s the blue range on the chart.

If you look at the orange line, and the red dots, you can see the actual data compared to the expected data (the blue). Then look at the dates. When we started radically modifying our behavior, there’s a sharp decrease in body temperature—fewer fevers. That line pretty quickly drops below the expected level. Well below. Not only is the social distancing cutting down new fevers from coronavirus; it’s cutting down fevers from all sources to well below expected levels. In other words, what works to keep from transmitting coronavirus also works to keep from transmitting flu and colds, the typical causes of fever.

Then there’s another chart, showing places, with dates and events added—from the same source at Healthweather.us. This one compares Santa Clara, California, to Miami-Dade, Florida.

fever level comparisons of counties and California and Florida
screenshot from here

They have many of the same events happen, but with Florida most happen somewhat later. What you can see is that the drop off becomes significant after the community makes significant changes, with steepest drops after schools are closed, restaurants are closed, and stay-at-home orders are put in place.

Did something else happen, coinciding with those dates, following a similar pattern in different places, other than the social distancing we’ve been doing in reaction to the coronavirus? I don’t think so.

The evidence is strong that staying at home is having an effect.

Yay, us! We deserve a pat on the back. From ourselves, of course, since we don’t want anyone else getting close to us.

Keep up the good work! But not indefinitely. It’s not time to quit doing what we’re doing yet. But we need to be having a serious talk about when we can go back out—without causing a sudden resurgence, which would be a terrible outcome.

We could use a few miracles—pick any you like:

·       The virus miraculously disappears.

·       The virus greatly decreases in the summer months, affording us time to prepare for a second season of it in the fall—with all the testing and treatments we’ll need.

·       The virus is greatly weakened as it changes—a not uncommon mutation in viruses, which die off quickly when they kill their hosts, so they need to weaken in order to perpetuate.

·       A cure is developed, tested, and made standard for care.

·       Testing procedures—for both presence of virus and presence of antibodies—are quick, cheap, and widely available within the near future and for any future outbreak.

·       We’re so good at staying home and social distancing that the virus stops having hosts to spread to and dies a natural death.

This coming Friday, Good Friday, our Church invites everyone to join us in a worldwide fast. That means, typically, skipping two meals over twenty-four hours. (For example, you eat dinner Thursday evening, and then fast until dinner time Friday evening, when you can eat again.) Prayer during a fast can be more intentional, because you feel your weakness and thus your reliance on God. We hold a monthly fast, and donate the cost of the two meals to help the poor; feel free to do that. This is a special additional one. Note that, if your health doesn’t permit you to go that long without food, you can adjust your sacrifice to whatever you can do; your efforts and prayers will be acceptable to the Lord.

Illustration cred: Josh Asuncion
found on Facebook

In our modern world, there are so many ways we have managed to control the elements, we can sometimes forget our reliance on God. But I’ve had friends point out to me a couple of things. If the Lord wanted to use a calamity for good, how about having more time at home with families? And more, how about having people home together on Passover (Wednesday evening to Thursday evening), and even all Holy Week, including Easter Sunday?

We’ll miss getting together with our kids and grandkids for these days. But we’ve enjoyed some very sacred Sundays, meeting together as just the two of us. And we enjoyed a broadcast of a worldwide conference this past weekend. Spiritually, we’re doing better (dare I say it?)—because of the crisis.

Encouraging words are intended to instill courage. I’m glad we’re getting some of that. I pray it’s enough to fend off any more discouragement.

Apollo 11 50th Anniversary

son Political Sphere at NASA
November 1986
on our first visit to Houston

Saturday is a big, historic celebration day for all mankind. But we’re in Houston, and it’s especially meaningful here. Johnson Space Center, or NASA, is where out-of-town guests most want to visit. We went there frequently during our homeschooling years. We’re hoping to take a grandson this coming week.

I remember July 20, 1969. I had just turned 11. It was a Sunday. The afternoon meeting at church usually lasted an hour and a half, but that day it was abbreviated to about twenty minutes, at which point we were sent home to experience history with our families.

Our black and white TV was on the rest of the day. We watched the occasional simulation, but waited what seemed endlessly for the historic moment. After long hours, past summertime bedtime, we watched what looked sort of like a fuzzy white ghost moving down a ladder to step onto the moon—where no human had ever stepped before.

And Neil Armstrong spoke his historic words:

One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.

There’s a description in the Spherical Model of what a thriving civilization looks like. One part of that description is:

Creativity abounds; enlightening arts and literature exceed expectations. Architecture and infrastructure improve; innovation and invention are the rule.

Putting a human being on the moon was a remarkable human accomplishment. So many things went right—which included a supportive public in a free world where creativity and innovation could thrive. It was a close race with the competitive communist Soviets. But it seems to me symbolically fitting that we, the free people, actual won the space race.

I’ve been celebrating the 50^th anniversary in little ways all month. Reading things in the newspaper and online, making plans to do another tour. But this week has been especially fun watching a documentary series presented by Bill Whittle, entitled Apollo 11: What We Saw. So far there have been three parts, which can be either viewed or listened to as a podcast. But I recommend watching. The fourth one will be shown on Saturday, the actual 50^th anniversary day.

Each is about an hour long, and well worth the time. The first is here, below, followed by links to the next two. If you hunt for them on your own, you can find them on YouTube and on The Daily Wire (whose studio was used for the production), as well as The Daily Wire’s Facebook page.

Among the rich delight of details are a couple of observations. One is that, while it seems miraculous in the days of slide rules that we could send men to the moon, each step along the way was only the next increment beyond the previous accomplishment, which the whole population (Bill Whittle even more than most) were paying attention to. Another is that the astronauts were an extraordinary bunch, who really did have "the right stuff." Success beat out failure more than once because of Neil Armstrong's beyond-normal-human ability to think and act calmly while under more stress than most of us will ever face.

It's a story worth retelling, and forever remembering.

Apollo 11: What We Saw

Part 1: Find it here

As the astronauts landed on the moon
screenshot from What We Saw, Part I

 

Part 2: Find it here.

Apollo 11 Lunar Module
screenshot from What We Saw Part II

Part 3: Find it here. 

Buzz Aldrin, in perhaps the most famous photo in world history
screenshot from What We Saw Part III

No More Right Wing

I came across a discussion a week or so ago between Andrew Klavan and Bill Whittle of PJ Media, talking about how fascism isn’t right-wing. It’s socialism. [Video below.] I’ve been saying that for a while. It’s a good discussion, but I continue to think my three-dimensional Spherical Model is a more useful way to view ideas. I re-introduced the basic concept the last post of 2014.

So watch their 5-minute discussion, and think—if we’d all been taught the Spherical Model all along, there never would have been any confusion. And we’d be free from the comparison between Constitution admirers and Nazis. We’d also be free from the requirement to compromise between one level of tyranny and another. We could leave right and left-wing tyrannies to themselves and insist instead on freedom, prosperity, and civilization. We could go north on the sphere and stay there.

 

Civilization vs. Savagery in Israel

If you think there is an Israeli occupation of Palestine, you need a primer. If you think both sides are equally culpable in their conflict, you lack information. If you think maybe it’s a good idea to support Israel, maybe for Biblical reason, but you don’t know how to describe your reasons, this might be a good time to get some useful facts.

Back in 2011 I wrote a six-part post on the history of Israel. It’s a pretty good primer.

·         Israel, Part I: Ancient History

·         Israel, Part II: Zionism and Migration

·         Israel, Part III: Conflict and Violence

·         Israel, Part IV:  Holocaust and Statehood

·         Israel, Part V: Refugees and 1967 War

·         Israel, Part VI: Continued Unrest

In Part VI I link a video that describes the history with animated maps—about six minutes. Worth seeing. This past week I saw a video by Jewish conservative radio host Dennis Prager, which also gives a brief history, posted on YouTube in June 2014, shortly before the recent missile out of Gaza began. It gives a 5-minute summary of the situation, reminding us that there has never been any state in that region that wasn’t a Jewish state; this is the third Jewish state. There has never been an Arab state, a Palestinian state, a Muslim state, or any other state.

 

As I mention in my Part VI, the terrorists fighting Israel are more Marxist than religious Muslim. Potential PLO leaders were trained in Moscow, East Germany, and Cuba, where they were specifically trained in subversion, propaganda, explosives, and terror tactics. They continue these tactics still. One of the PLO’s tactics was disinformation—lying propaganda. Repeating the lies over and over, through decades, in schools and in every news broadcast, has left a large part of the world unaware of the truth of events in the Middle East. The PLO is named less in media since the loss of Soviet support in the early 1990s. Now the entity in the forefront—still using those tactics—is the terrorist organization Hamas.

Steven Bucci, former Army Special Forces officer and top Pentagon official, now with The Heritage Foundation, offered perspective in a piece July 17, 2014, “The Moral Difference between Israel and Hamas,” The Daily Signal July 17, 2014:

What most Americans—and the world—hear about the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas goes something like this: “125 Palestinians, most of them civilians, have been killed by Israel’s relentless assault on Gaza. No Israelis have yet been killed.” This may be true, but there is absolutely no context to it. One must look at the methodologies of the two sides.

Hamas sets up rocket launchers—as well as supply dumps and command-and-control sites—in the midst of apartment buildings, mosques and schools. From these sites, its fighters launch dozens of rockets in salvos, targeting population centers with no discrimination at all. They have been firing almost continuously of late. But normally, they fire when Israeli school children move from their homes, which have safe shelters, to their schools, which also have shelters. They do this deliberately to try and catch the kids in the open. They don’t seek to minimize collateral damage – they seek to maximize it.

Israel, on the other hand, fires only at specific, intelligence-derived military targets. Since these targets are deliberately intermixed with the civilian population by Hamas, Israel must take steps to minimize the collateral casualties.

Before the Israelis strike a building, every home in it gets a call on its landline phone, as do all the cell phones associated with the inhabitants of the building—the cells additionally get text messages—telling them that in a few minutes the building will be targeted. Finally, to make sure everyone gets the message, Israel drops a dud bomb—one containing no explosives—onto the roof of the structure. Minutes later, the building is destroyed. There is no instance in modern military history where a force has taken greater measures to give the innocents as much chance to get out of the way.

Similar information was shared in interviews with Israeli Ambassador to U.S. Ron Dermer. He was interviewed on Face the Nation July 13^th,  TheWashington Post July 15th,  and CBS News July 18^th.  Here’s a quote from the Washington Post interview:

As we’re trying to people out of harm’s way, Hamas is telling people to go into harm’s way. They’re actually telling their population to ignore the warnings of our military, as we drop flyers, we make phonecalls, we send text messages. We do things I’m not sure there’s another country in the history of the world, in warfare, that have gone to such great lengths to keep the civilians of the other side’s population out of harm’s way. We’re doing what we have to, to take the action to defend our people.

Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was quote this past week, saying, “The difference between us is simple: We develop missile-defense systems to protect our citizens, while they use their citizens to protect their missiles.”

The Prime Minister did an impressive interview on Fox  News, with Bret Baier, on July 21st. All six minutes are clear and informative, but here’s a sample:

We asked these civilians before we went in, “Please leave.” We text them on cell phones. We drop leaflets. We tell them where to go. And those who left were safe. Now those who didn’t leave, you know why they didn’t leave? Because Hamas told them to be there. Because Hamas, while we try to avoid Palestinian civilian dead, Hamas wants Palestinian civilian dead. The more the better, so they can give you telegenic fodder. So this is the cruelest, most grotesque war that I’ve ever seen…. Civilian deaths are caused because they want them to be caused.

My daughter, Social Sphere, has a friend she met some years ago, as a teen in Texas, still in touch on social media. Danielle moved to Israel to serve in the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces). Here are some of her recent posts [ID info removed]:

Of the 13 Israeli soldiers killed yesterday, one is a Texas boy—who moved to Israel with two of his best friends to join the IDF, giving him a “lone soldier” status. This means that even though he and his family did not live in Israel and he did not have to serve, he decided at a young age (in his case, 16) to move to Israel by himself so he can serve in the IDF. So he is alone in Israel. According to our friend—“These kids get most respect in Israel.” We are as honored that he came from Texas as Israel is to have received him.

Another day Danielle said, “The indoctrination of hate is one of the primary tactics Hamas uses to teach violence to children. This is child abuse. Hamas is a dangerous terrorist organization for Israelis, but they are toxic for Palestinian children and civilians as well.”

Another of Social Sphere’s Texas friends traveled to Israel recently to learn more about her ancestry. Rachel quoted US Secretary of State John Kerry, saying one of the few things he has said that rang true: “No country could sit by and not take steps to try to deal with people who are sending thousands of rockets your way. The fact is that Hamas uses civilians as shields and they fire from a home and draw the fire into the home.”

Using human shields is a violation of the rules of warfare. So is targeting of civilians, as Hamas does, seeking to kill as many civilians as possible in Israel, while also delighting in any of their own people killed, because they use that in their propaganda.

I was thinking the word was getting out this time, but apparently not much beyond those who already know the truth. Despite the moral clarity between the two sides, the UN just decided to investigate possible crimes against humanity in this conflict—but will ONLY investigate Israel.

Israel deserves the support of the civilized world, not condemnation for keeping itself alive.

There’s one other video you ought to watch, new yesterday, July 23^rd, from Bill Whittle: “The Case for Israel.”  He compares the two sides, one civilized and one barbaric (in the Spherical Model we use the word savage, but I think we can conclude they have the same meaning). In case you missed it, Hamas recently referred to the Jews as a little bit worse than Hitler. This quote responds to that ironic accusation:

The instant that Hamas or Hezbollah get their hands on a nuclear weapon, they will do with it what they do every day with their rocks and mortars and missiles. They will use it. On Israel. The Israelis have an estimated 500 nuclear weapons and could destroy the Arabs any time they chose. They don’t.

Those are not Nazis. Those are moral, civilized people.

Israel is an island of civilization in a sea of barbarity, and that is why it is being targeted. Uncomfortable with those words, “civilization” and “barbarity?”

He then gives a long list of evidences of Israel’s civilization status. The differences are stark, and ought to be noticeable by any civilized person. But disinformation, over time, has done its dirty business.

Anyone who thinks the Israelis keep all the goods and wealth for themselves and deprive their neighbors doesn’t know the history. Also, anyone who claims this attack from Gaza is caused by Israeli “occupation” is buying the propaganda. Israel left Gaza in 2005, leaving behind infrastructure, hospitals, schools, even greenhouses with plants growing. The response was to destroy everything and subject the people to poverty, and then blame the Israelis for their misfortune. Toward the end of the video, Whittle covers this bit of history, and refers to another concept we talk about when striving for civilization—“Thou shalt not covet.”

But you cannot understand Israel’s actions without understanding the pervasive, unrelenting, hate that surrounds that outpost of civilization. From Hezbollah rockets made in Iran, to BDS [boycott, divestment, and sanctions] sanctions made in Berkeley and Santa Monica, the attacks on this country and its people cannot be understood without getting to the bedrock essence of the nasty, petty, small and mean-spirited emotion that drives anti-Semitism.

And that emotion is Envy.

Genesis, Chapter 26, verses 12 through 16:

And Isaac sowed in that land and reaped in the same year a hundredfold. The LORD blessed him, and the man became rich, and gained more and more until he became very wealthy. He had possessions of flocks and herds and many servants, so that the Philistines envied him. (Now the Philistines had stopped and filled with earth all the wells that his father’s servants had dug in the days of Abraham his father.) And Abimelech said to Isaac, “Go away from us, for you are much mightier than we.”

That was thousands of years before there was a religion called Islam. And when the Israelis, as a gesture of peace and goodwill, turned over the Gaza Strip in 2005 the first thing these modern-day philistines did was smash the windows of the greenhouses that had been handed to them by other people’s labor. Once again, they filled wells in the desert with sand.

Israel has survived miraculously in the past. I expect it to survive now. I want to be clear that I side with civilization, not savagery. And the differences right now couldn’t be clearer.

 

.

America--God Shed His Grace on Thee

Mostly I just want to wish everyone a Happy 4^th of July. What a blessing that 238 years ago some brave patriots gave birth to a new nation, “conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal!"

I’ve been thinking about the “list of grievances” in the Declaration of Independence. These are the things the patriots believed were their God-given rights, and expectations under the law as Englishmen. But the king had been ignoring the law, and their rights, and imposing upon them, despite their appeals through all legal and peaceful means.

By the time of the Declaration of Independence, the patriots had been engaged in fighting the British Army, their supposed protectors, since April 1775, more than a year of war already.

The revolutionaries of our founding were not trying to fundamentally transform England; they were trying to restore the rights their citizenship was supposed to grant them. In separating, they found a better way than a monarchy to guarantee those rights—by limiting government.

It still took more than another decade to settle into creating the Constitution, with its balance of strength and limitations. Our founding documents are brilliant—and inspired.

Some months ago I wrote about the different types of minds that gravitate toward “conserving” what is good or “throwing out” what isn’t perfect. This is the debate between two foundational thinkers: Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine (in Personality Divide, Part I and Part II). Either party can have a variety of thinking types, but there does seem to be an overabundance among liberals of those who see what they see as something imperfect in what we have, and expand that to hate the whole and want to start from scratch, their own way.

This difference in ways of thinking appeared again recently. A few days ago I learned of a study by Pew Research, that came out in June, concerning patriotism. Their studies tend to be exhaustive and detailed. But, the short version is, if you’re patriotic in America today, chances are great that you are a conservative.

Without delving into the specific questions, we can say that of “steadfast conservatives,” 72% say they’re proud to be Americans, of “business conservatives” (I’m not sure how this difference is defined), 81% are proud to be American. Of self-declared “solid liberals” only 40% say they’re proud to be American.

 

I haven’t studied this enough to say whether the data bears this out, but it might be that, if you don’t love the country enough to recognize her strengths, you shouldn’t be allowed to touch anything that might cause “transformational” change—because you don’t know a good thing when you’re living with it up close and personal.

Along those lines, I want to share one other thing today. This is a comparison of what happened after we won the Vietnam War—when liberals came in, failed to keep our promises, and allowed the enemy to come in and claim victory after all—and what is today happening in Iraq. I’ve seen this comparison in my own mind, but didn’t have the historical details to synthesize it. Bill Whittle does that clearly—as he does with so many issues. It’s worth watching on a day when we celebrate the brilliant, shining example of civilization that is America.

 

I love America. I love her goodness. I love her possibilities for thriving civilization. As one of our anthems says, "America, America--God she His grace on thee, and crown thy good with brotherhood, from sea to shining sea."

Truth, Beauty, Goodness

Welcome to a new year! If you’re still breathing, you got here. It doesn’t seem like that much of an accomplishment, just surviving. But if you got here healthy and happy, with abundant joy in your life—now that’s an accomplishment. And it’s something that isn’t likely to have happened if all you do is breathe and survive. You need to live life a certain way to bring about that kind of happy result.

Sometimes we use the beginning of a new year to reflect, and to plan. To see how we’ve been doing and resolve to do something even better. We live, at least while we’re thinking about it, with more purpose.

Aristotle, image found here

So, in order to get more goodness in our lives, we need to focus on some pure, basic principles of goodness. These are the principles we try to identify in separating civilization from savagery, in Spherical Model terms. It’s simply better to face inevitable adversities while living in the abundant, fulfilling, loving and happy civilized society, rather than in the mean, dark, bitter, unfair, and chaotic misery of a savage society. We might be trying to identify what Aristotle referred to as “eudaimonia,” or “human flourishing.” You get to that state, hexis, or disposition to act excellently, by learning and adopting virtues.

I listened this past weekend to an interview between Bill Whittle, at PJTV, and Dr. Larry Arnn, President of Hillsdale College. I’ve quoted Dr. Arnn a number of times [here and here], and I think I’m seeing a theme. He often talks about the basic idea of nature: the goodness of a thing residing it its “being” the thing it is meant to be. The “cupness” of a cup is what determines whether it is good. And similarly, the “humanness” of a human being is what determines goodness. So, from that comes the question: what is a good human? Or, put more directly (and more religiously), what does it mean to be a good person? What should we do, think, and be to live a good life?

Here's the whole interview, which I recommend. But I have taken just a segment to talk about below.

 

Dr. Arnn says they teach the classics at Hillsdale College, and also at the charter schools developed by Hillsdale. The reason for studying classics is that these very questions about how to live have been asked, with attempted answers, for a very long time. Hillsdale is a liberal arts college, so this exchange is in response to a question about the value of such an education in today’s world. But, again, it’s the answer to that “how to be” question.

[at 11:50 in] Bill Whittle: You said earlier that a liberal arts education prepares people basically on how to live. Basically, a student who’s completed a liberal arts education at a college like yours that really understands the meaning of the term, is somebody that not only has a storehouse of information, but they also come out with some kind of a value system, some sort of  a moral code—some sort of an intellectual and moral ability to look at changing circumstances in the world, make sense out of them, put them together in a way that’s reasonable, and then proceed down the pathway of history. What do you say to people who claim that a liberal arts education doesn’t prepare students for a specific career?

[at 12:20 in] Larry Arnn: Well, the first thing to know is, what are you? We all love to say now that students are trying to find their identity. Well, their identity would be located in what kind of thing they are.

Around here I teach Aristotle’s Ethics every other year or so, and it’s a glorious thing. It’s one of the greatest books ever written; it’s a very beautiful book. And that word beauty is a very important word. The Greek word is “kalos” in Aristotle. And he thinks that everything tends toward the good and the beautiful. And the good is really the thing in inside each thing that makes it what it is. So, we are humans, and we’re full of contradictions and potentials. Contradictions, because, for example, we depend on our families a lot. All you’ve got to do is come to college on opening day in September, and you’ll see lots of weeping mothers and fathers leaving off their beloved children, who are 18 years old. And if they were some other kind of creature, the parents wouldn’t even know who the children are.

That word nature—that comes from the Latin word for birth. And the idea is that family, like human rights, is a natural phenomenon. And you can see that played out all the time.

Well, that’s one part of human nature, but another part is, we have discretion over stuff like that. We don’t really have to get married. We can abandon our children, if we want to. Whereas other animals obey instinct.

So the first thing is, Aristotle’s question in the Ethics is, What makes a human being happy? And his answer is, in short, being good. That is, learning how to be a good one of this kind of thing. And he lists the virtues. And they start with courage, which is the right disposition toward pain and danger. And then the second one is moderation, which is the right disposition toward pleasure.

And when you study that book, you become acquainted, in one of the greatest books ever written, with the obstacles with which we are confronted in our attempt to be good human beings. And there’s just nothing but nobility, in learning what that book says. And there are profound questions in the book that you will end up thinking about the rest of your life, if you think seriously. And it will make you a more serious person. And, in response to your direct question, better equipped to be a working and functioning citizen and worker and member of society.

You could say that learning to live a virtuous life makes you a better contributor to civilization than learning computer programming or civil engineering. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t learn those other things and contribute in those ways so you can earn your keep; it means that learning to make a living, absent learning how to live a good life, is not enough. In a full life, do both. But start with learning how to live; then add learning how to do something useful. Because once you learn how to live a good life, you will be capable of learning any number of contributing skills.

There’s an object lesson I’ve seen many times. You have a pile of rocks and a pile of sand that must fit in a jar. If you put the sand in first, the rocks don’t fit. But if you place the rocks in first, then the sand sifts into all the open places and fits in the jar as well. First things first, is the principle. Live a good life, whatever you do. The rest of living will find room.

I pray this is a year in which more of us find a way to live a beautiful life, in harmony with the our true nature, as God intended for us, with the happiness God is ready to grant if we will live in obedience to the principles of civilization.



John Keats, quote from "Ode on a Grecian Urn,"
image found here

 

Concerns, Part II

We started this two-part post about concerns, in Part I, with a look at The Book Thief, a novel about a young girl in Nazi Germany in the early 1940s. The main questions we’re looking at are:

How does a free, civilized people become subject, in a rather short time-frame, to undeniable tyranny? And how many in the population are willing to submit before even the unwilling are also subjected?

Today we’re looking at America, present day, concerned about what's happening, because we ought to know better.

* The other day I referred to a Bill Whittle Afterburner video. About halfway through, Whittle says this:

Now, some people have said that Obama is being petty and adolescent by deploying the new gestapo, that Smoky the Bear hat wearing National Park Service, as his primary weapon in making things hurt for the American people. It’s not just barricades erected by supposedly furloughed rangers in order to keep the American patriots that kept this country free from freely walking through the monuments erected to their dead friends and to they themselves. It’s things like keeping people on buses to keep them from even taking photographs of the national parks that we the people, not King Obama, actually own. It’s things like removing the handles from taps on hiking trails so that people can’t get a drink, and a list of shameful, shocking, eye-opening jackboot tactics to make sure his pain is felt—not allow it to be felt, but to make it be felt—goes on and on and on. And of all the things I’ve seen that have worried, depressed, and angered me since this hope and change huckster came to the Oval Office, nothing has disgusted and worried me so much as the willingness, the ease—in fact, in many cases the relish and the joy—at which formerly innocuous seeming people like park rangers have taken to kicking the American people in the groin. I will never forget this—not ever. And while I used to wonder where a dictator’s private army would come from among formerly free people—well, I wonder no more.

That use of regular, friendly neighborhood park rangers—who are willing to do as they’re told when they’re asked to do something obviously wrong—is disturbing. It’s a concern. No panic yet. We’re not expecting park rangers to beat any of us for sharing bread with a hungry stranger. But how far would they go, just doing what they’re told, before saying, “No, I won’t do that?” We don’t know.

photo from here

* Here’s another story that is cause for concern. Police took a flag from a veteran during a visit to the WWII Memorial. It looks like the veteran carrying the flag was in a wheelchair. But was he waving it, possibly risking hitting those around him? According to this report, no: he wasn’t doing anything but holding it. So police, who in pretty much my whole lifetime, have been considered the friend of law-abiding citizens, look here like recruits of an anti-freedom tyrannical overlord. At this point just the DC park police, and maybe only some specific bad apple. Still, cause for concern, though not yet panic.

* Here’s yet another puzzling piece: Veterans are being told that someone who doesn’t know them, some unknown Veterans Administration government bureaucrat, will determine their mental/emotional/physical competence. If this stranger determines you are not competent, you may be deprived of your ability to make your own financial decisions, and/or you may no longer have your second amendment right to own/purchase/use guns and ammo. The link will lead you do an actual letter sample. There have been thousands sent out. Some of the recipients can guess that it is because they sought help for PTSD, or temporary depression, or something else they sought help coping with. But these aren’t individuals who consider their problem disabling—or even still currently relevant. And many recipients can’t identify any conceivable reason for the notice. Their being a veteran seems to be the only contributing factor.

I know you can’t always believe everything you find on the internet (even here, despite my efforts at finding and revealing truth). But when I look at this story, it appears credible. The piece is written by Michael Connelly, Executive Director of the United States Justice Foundation, who writes a blog and teaches on constitutional issues. At this point I haven’t evaluated the reliability of the story. But if it is true, and it’s kept quiet so we aren't told elsewhere, this is more than just a minor concern. It’s the kind of thing a conspiracy theorist would come up with: government is determined to disarm the very citizens best trained and experienced in defense against enemies foreign and domestic.

* Another story this week was about a woman working for the government, taking calls to help people navigate the impossibly flawed (“glitchy”) Obamacare website. She had the misfortune of taking a friendly call from Sean Hannity from his radio show. He was kind to her and thanked her for how nice she was. But she apparently made a fatal error by admitting (in a job where she takes complaints) that a lot of calls she takes are from people who don’t like Obamacare. She was fired. As Bryan Preston of PJ Media put it,

This firing makes Erling Davis, not Kathleen Sebelius or any of the contractors who messed up the website, the first person held accountable for any problems with Healthcare.gov. The first person held accountable by the Obama administration is a person at the very bottom of the regime, who makes no decisions that impact the implementation of the law at all.

Just let that sink in.

Who fired her? How far up the chain was the decision to fire her made? What reasons were given for her firing?

Those are among the questions that the most secretive administration we’ve ever had will never answer.

Saying something the government doesn’t approve of is enough to get you fired; messing up the finances and health care of millions of Americans is just doing the job. Sean Hannity stepped in, by the way, to offer the woman a year’s salary to get her by until she gets a job, because he felt bad for getting her in trouble.

* The president gave a speech shortly after the government reopened in which he gave this warning:

And now that the government is reopened, and this threat to our economy is removed, all of us need to stop focusing on the lobbyists, and the bloggers, and the talking heads on radio, and the professional activists who profit from conflict, and focus on what the majority of Americans sent us here to do.

Who are the villains? Well, of course lobbyists—people who sway government; the very cronies this president gives favors to but doesn’t want you to believe he’s in bed with. Then there are bloggers. He has just warned you about me; I’m not to be heeded. Neither are radio hosts, flippantly referred to as talking heads, even though on radio you don’t see their heads, while on TV news, which is much more aligned with his propaganda, you do see talking heads. Then he mentions “professional activists,” as if that isn’t the only kind of job he himself ever had. So, translate that to “evil conservative patriot activists,” like the ones the IRS targeted—not the actual paid professional ones like ACORN and subsidiaries that this president got paid to train in their tactics.

This is a little like the Wizard of Oz telling Dorothy, “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.” Translation: “Don’t notice evidence of truth; only notice and believe what I tell you to notice and believe.” As a blogger, my role in the story is Toto, the little dog pulling back the curtain on truth. That’s not an ignoble character to play. Even though we might not be “in Kansas anymore”—in the American freedom world we grew up assuming was our home—Toto is still perfectly capable of sniffing around and pulling back the curtain.

At this point, the president’s call for avoiding unsanctioned information sources doesn’t actually stop someone like me from posting. So his anti-conservative-voices rhetoric is a concern, but not yet a reason to panic. So far this still sounds like paranoia, but if voices like mine ever get shut down—then we’re beyond concern and into reason for panic. Just saying, while I can.